150 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



to the adulteration of honey. The idea that 

 we must fight adulteration because it is an 

 evil is not logical. Please lay aside all 

 prejudices and listen to reason for one mo- 

 ment. If we are to oppose evil we ought to 

 use our resources in such a way that they 

 will do the most good. We ought either to 

 attack the greatest evil, or else one that is 

 the easiest overcome. What folly to pass by 

 scores of crying evils, those that are causing 

 untold miseries, and go on a wild goose 

 chase after an insignificant evil that is grow- 

 ing less as the years go by. Some bee-keep- 

 ers may thi)ik they are opposed to the adul- 

 teration of honey because it is an evil, but 

 the supreme indifference that they exhibit 

 towards other and greater evils that don't 

 effect them directly, shows that they delude 

 themselves. As good citizens we are all op- 

 posed to any form of evil; as hee-keetwr^ we 

 are opposed to the adulteration of honey be- 

 cause it strikes at our pocket books. 



Another gratification (to the editor) is the 

 admission that producers can no longer af- 

 ford to adulterate honey. The difference in 

 price between honey and glucosie is now so 

 slight that the expense of mixing does not 

 pay unless the business is carried on upon a 

 grand scale. This greatly simplifies the 

 matter of fighting adulteration. Instead of 

 having a thousand and one little mixers all 

 over the country, there are only a few and 

 they are in the business quite extensively. 

 The business must be extensive or there are 

 no profits. If rightly managed this state of 

 affairs is really an advantage to bee-keepers. 

 Instead of l)eing compelled to hunt up a 

 thousand rills and build a dam on each, 

 there are only a few broad streams that need 

 "damming." But the dams must be longer, 

 higher and stronger, greater in many cases 

 than one man can build, and a union of bee- 

 keepers is needed. There is already a Bee- 

 Keepers' Union, formed for the purpose of 

 defending its members against unjust perse- 

 cution, but its constitution could be so 

 changed that it might aid bee-keepers by 

 aggressive as well as defensive measures. 

 Its present Manager says that such a change 

 must also be accompanied by a change in its 

 Manager. I trust not, if the Union only 

 could and would (as it should) pay its Man- 

 ager liberally for all time spent in its ser- 

 vice. There would be no running after a 

 thousand and one petty adulterators, as Bro. 

 Newman fears would be the case. It would 

 not be policy to prosecute every dealer, per- 



haps few if any of them, but reach for the 

 adulterators, the mixers. Stop the mixing 

 and there will be no dealers. Let each bee- 

 keeper, when he finds his market infested 

 with adulterated honey, trace the adulterated 

 goods to the adulterator. With a reasonable 

 amount of shrewdness this can be done with 

 no great amount of trouble and expense. 

 Let some of the "stuff" be bought, direct 

 from the mixer if possible, or secured in 

 such a manner that its source can be ^n'oved. 

 When proofs of adulteration have been se- 

 cured, let the adulterator be informed that 

 prosecution will result unless he stops this 

 "evil" practice. Bring to his notice the 

 Bee-Keepers' Union, formed expressly to 

 aid bee-keepers in such matters, and that it 

 will be called upon if necessary. If neces- 

 sary prosecute and continue to prosecute for 

 each offense, until the practice of adultera- 

 tion is abandoned. A few convictions un- 

 der the auspices of the Union, proofs of 

 which could be shoved under the noses of 

 other adulterators, would have a rather de- 

 pressing effect upon adulteration. The very 

 name of the Union would be a,power against 

 adulteration. They would no longer ask: 

 "What are you going to do about it?" The 

 assurance of Prof. Cook that adulteration 

 can umiaUy be detected leads me to hope 

 that, with the aid of the Union, the few large 

 adulterators could be made to "shut up 

 shop." 



Whether the above course is adopted or 

 not, I still believe, in the face of all that has 

 been said, that honey will yet be so cheap 

 that it will not pay to adulterate it. Dr. 

 Miller says in his "Stray Straws" that 

 "Hutchinson's remedy for adulteration is 

 cheap honej' — too cheap to be good." Now, 

 Doctor, I protest. I have never intimated 

 that the honey should be poor in quality. I 

 would raise only the best of honey, but I 

 would raise it more cheaply. Many are the 

 inventions that have been made in bee-keep- 

 ing, but that industry is still in its infancy 

 as a business; is still big with possibilities. 

 Just consider the effect that one or two dis- 

 coveries would have. I^et us be able to con- 

 trol swarming and what would be the result? 

 Suppose that the wintering of bees should be 

 reduced to an exact science, where would the 

 price of honey go to? Both of these are 

 among the possibilities. In one sense bee- 

 keeping resembles manufacturing. When 

 the raw material costs a manufacturer noth- 

 ing, what show is there for a rival that 



